[19001] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Curran)
Tue Aug 25 01:02:12 1998
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 23:52:46 -0400
To: Patrick Greenwell <patrick@namesecure.com>
From: John Curran <jcurran@bbnplanet.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSI.3.96.980824143927.29439A-100000@po1.namesecure.co
m>
At 03:15 PM 08/24/1998 -0700, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
>>...
>> Customers who receive traffic currently bear some of the costs
>> and the sending customer bears some of the costs. In the case
>> of an off-net sender with shortest-exit routing and no offsetting
>> traffic in the other direction, the receiving customer ends up
>> bearing all of the costs.
>
>Well, my understanding is (and someone correct me if I am wrong) in at
>least the case of Exodus, they aren't using closest-exit. I can completely
>understand requiring peers not use closest-exit. That seems somewhat
>reasonable.
I was not referring to any particular peering relationship,
only problems brought about by closest-exit peering in the
presence of highly assymetric traffic.
>I haven't seen anything in these recent discussions to suggest that BBN
>would be offering me a discount on inbound traffic since now the sender
>would be paying for it.
In the case of traffic coming coming from a peer network with wildly
asymmetric traffic, the sending network is paying to offset the traffic
assymetry; this returns the economics to that of a balanced peer or
an on-net sender (which is the normal case today).
/John
